>>Sometimes I try to switch off these expectations and just go for it. The>>results are very different and just as valuable (or musically pleasing).>>The aim I guess is to train specific motions exploiting physics so that>>they can then be exploited subconciously.>>The parallel with traditional instruments is clear. I'm sure that Coltrane>"wnet for it" often, but if he hadn't known what actions to make to get>sound out of the sax, we wouldn't have that marvellous music that can be>heard on Giant Steps, Ascension, Ohm, etc. This points to a central>question for musicians and dancers: How much is successful improvisation>attributable to technique and to material orgnisation?

I think David brings up a good point here about what Coltrane was able to
do. The word I would use for this is virtuosity, when the knowing of one's
instrument is so intimate that it is possible to improvise extremely
powerful material. The problem when we send this over to the dance-tech
side is that, what virtuousos there are, are still in development because
their instrument was just recently invented.

It will be interesting to see if anyone comes up with an instrument to
sense a dancer's movement that is so compelling in its possibilities that
it would be produced in some number and that several dancers would take on
the task of learning to "play" it. Of course, Scott's point from posts past
comes up now,in that most of the instruments I have seen to date are self
contained enough for the non-technologically inclined dancer to make their
own compositions with them.